What are some objectivist comics?
>>83641661
Check out a torrent of Ditko's self-published work. Besides meme potential which I'm sure you're actually looking for there's some of the best layouts and designs around even at his age.
The storytime here about five years ago was a blast.
Ditko. Miller.
/thread
>>83641661
I'm not going to give you any recommendations as I gain nothing from doing so.
>>83641790
>Miller
Kill yourself
>>83641661
Find them yourself you filthy parasite. Do the world a favor and kill some orphans, non-fabulously wealthy scum, and sick people while you're at it.
>>83641661
Slott's Spider-man is an objectionable comic
Close enough?
>>83641967
Is that why it's so shit?
>>83641661
Ditko's Mr.A
>>83641811
>>83641918
Nice strawmen.
In X-men: Apocalypse the main villain is AnCap, does that count?
>>83641861
What's wrong with Miller?
>>83641661
Not a comic but Zack Synder is a huge Rand fanboy who identifies heavily with Galt so his movies. He's planning to make a film based on one of her books too, can't remember which one.
>>83642193
I wouldn't mind seeing a fountainhead adaptation
>>83642019
That is exactly what Objectivism is. Never help anyone unless they pay you. Anyone who asks for help and doesn't promise money for it is a parasite.
>>83642193
Another reason to hate Snyder.
>>83642382
>That is exactly what Objectivism is
Prove it, tough guy.
>>83642157
Nothing, he's no objectivist
Not a comic but Incredibles is literally objectivist propaganda.
>>83642409
Like Galt he is a misunderstood supergenius and Christlike superman held down by the retarded masses who just don't unconditionally worship at his feet and throw money at him as they should.
>>83642416
Not for free
>>83641790
Mr.A, Old earth 4 Question, not the pos-crisis Zen hippie.
Early SpiderMan.
>>83642482
Have you read his Martha Washington books? He loves Rand. I'm not using that as an insult. I'm fucking serious.
>>83642382
>assuming payment can only be monetary
Idiot.
>>83642498
It's really not though, the creators have gone into this in some depth. Although there are some stupid things about the movie (being born with some random possibly dangerous super power makes you special and worthwhile but being a super genius inventor who is a self-made millionaire does not), it's not Objectivist.
>>83642498
First time I've heard someone claim this. Care to explain?
Paul Pope is a libertarian
>>83642551
It's the only payment that matters. Let the market decide.
>>83642562
>being born with some random possibly dangerous super power makes you special and worthwhile but being a super genius inventor who is a self-made millionaire does not
That's more Syndrome's hangup, isn't it? If he wasn't so obsessed with Mr Incredible he could easily have been far more successful than him, even without superpowers. It's not a message the movie is sending rather than the central mistake in the villain's neurosis.
>>83642382
No it isn't. It's about value of the work. It can be things other than money, that's the point of dagny and hank.
>>83642416
Read The Virtue of Selfishness it pretty much goes into it there. Misfortune is not an acceptable excuse for needing help to Ayn.
Superhero Stories
I can't understand this objectivism meme.
Explain please.
>>83643821
It's a philosophy about how being evil is a good thing.
>>83642562
>"When everybody is special then nobody will be!"
>read: we should deny society at large the revolutionary wonders of ubiquitous super-technology because it would make some people feel not special
great message, movie
>>83641661
As an actual Objectivist I can only say anything by Ditko. I don't know anyone else's philosophy enough to confidently call them Objectivist. It's a label you put on yourself, it doesn't get put on to you.
>>83641918
>>83642382
>mfw
And this is why we can't have threads about Objectivism on this board and I'd rather not even have them. There are too many trolls on /co/ willing to just flat out lie and it confuses any actual sane discussion on the issue.
It's sad seeing someone's dishonest and gross misunderstanding of Rand try convince others of who she was or what she believed.
>>83641751
On the one hand, Ditko would probably call you a leech for torrenting his work. On the other hand, he appears to genuinely give no fucks about things after they've left his desk.
>>83642551
OP isn't offering anything of objective worth. We can't live on gratitude.
>>83643946
Do you want to live in the world of My Hero Academia?
>>83643821
It's a philosophy about rational self-interest and reality being real, that rejects mysticism.
>>83643891
This is a filthy fucking liar.
>>83643977
>>83641661
None of them because Ayn Rand was disgusted by the idea of objectivism becoming a movement.
If you meant "what are some comics that display objectivist principles" well... quite a lot, actually. Usually the villains.
>>83644042
yes
what kind of question is this
>>83644045
>rational self-interest
In other words, being a greedy hoarder of wealth. An heartless societal parasite.
>>83644045
>liar
explain riding around in a rape train built out of pure self-satisfaction while the entire universe crumbles to dust, then
actually OP I guess when you put it like that Hellboy's super-arc is pretty Objectivist
>>83641661
>>/lit/
Now GTFO fag
>>83644085
Massive property damage happening daily, people whose powers don't do anything except making them disfigured and ugly, one civil war away from world apocalypse... Why would you want to live in such a world?
>>83644064
Hence "it's a label you wear yourself." That's what that was directly referring too. Rand wanted her philosophy to live on without her, so she didn't name it after herself. Yet, so you still get people calling her a cultist and shit. It just goes to show how little of her actual words they listened to.
I can't understand how people can put up with Rand's inability to write and childish philosophy.
>>83644206
>>83644045
Nobody outside of Objectivists treat it like a real philosophy. It's really just reverse communism from a Russian girl who was disillusioned after seeing that America wasn't what she thought it'd be when she was growing up.
>>83644094
>In other words, being a greedy hoarder of wealth. An heartless societal parasite.
Do you expect payment for your work, yes or no?
>>83644110
>explain riding around in a rape train built out of pure self-satisfaction while the entire universe crumbles to dust, then
I don't have to "explain" shit you just made up.
>>83644297
Well luckily I don't take their "reality isn't real and you can only be a good person if a magic sky fairy and the majority of humans both tell you to!" as a real philosophy either so I guess it goes both ways.
>>83644268
I want to put my penis inside her.
>>83643821
Google it. It's pretty interesting and entertaining. Some fucked up logic working there in that philosophy? even if some of the points could be valid in certain circumstances. Apparently, Internet says that there're a ton of people in the animation and comic industries that love the bitch that was Ayn Rand.
I honestly think this is start to becoming a paranoid conspiracy, but it gives some though nevertheless.
I like Bioshock mocking on objectivism. Didn't know it was a thing until I played that. I guess I live in the most far and disconnected side of the Yuropoor world.
>>83644399
>>83644317
>Do you expect payment for your work, yes or no?
There's a huge difference between expecting payment for work and refusing to help anyone unless there's a direct benefit to yourself.
>>83644395
>reality isn't real
Are you referring to gnosticism now all of sudden, mate?
>>83644395
Religion isn't philosophy either, it's theology, but nice try.
>>83644525
Religion is proto-philosophy, just like philosophy is proto-science.
>>83644453
Way to not answer the question and make up a false equivalency .
Do. You. Expect. Payment. For. Your. Work?
Yes?
No?
>>83644525
Religion is philosophy plus mysticism. But nice try!
>>83644453
Basically. The appeal of objectivism to a lot of people is:
-it gives you an excuse for being a selfish dick
-it lets you think that you're special and amazing and the only reason you're not a multi-millionaire is because dumb people just don't appreciate your genius and won't let you succeed
Most of the people you're going to find online defending objectivism are going to fit squarely into that second bullet point.
>>83644548
I think that Philosophy implies that there's a well built, logical and reasoned, leveled, completed system about how the world works. Religion isn't logical at all, and isn't leveled.
I wish my English was richer, I cannot engage in this kind of discussions. Where is my fairy godmother when I need her?
>>83644548
None of that is right.
>>83644589
Yes? What part of my answer implies I don't? And you just ignored the second part of my answer.
>>83644589
> false equivalency
That's the entire point, though. Objectivism means not doing anything unless it's in your rationale self-interest. Rand literally believed helping anyone without gaining something was the most evil thing in the world. That doing something for someone just to be nice was stupid.
>>83641661
There's a comic out there of the Girl Who Owned a City, aka the first (only?) intentionally objectivist children's book.
>>83644206
Sounds no fucking different than most cape worlds, m8.
>>83644589
Not that anon, but If I'm volunteering myself, no. I don't. Unless you count expecting to make things better as a payment.
Does that count?
>>83644395
>reality isn't real and you can only be a good person if a magic sky fairy and the majority of humans both tell you to
Please tell me this isn't how you view being good.
>>83644645
Except all of that is right. Religion is what we used to explain why the world worked the way it did. Philosophy was a more rationalistic approach to explaining the world once civilization became more developed, until from philosophy was developed the scientific method which completely took over as our way of understanding everything.
>>83644823
>the scientific method has taken over from philosophy
>>83641861
How is he wrong? Miller is a legit psycho
>>83644642
>Philosophy implies that there's a well built, logical and reasoned, leveled, completed system about how the world works
Maybe if you're only familiar with Aristotelianism. Try reading that famous mystic Plato. Or if you dare, try reading any of the postmodern tripe that infests modern philosophy like a cancer.
>>83644933
As a method for understanding the world, yes it has. Philosophy today is mostly used as a method of self-improvement and dealing with living in the world, such as stoicism.
>>83644961
Well, I liked Plato, but I think I see why you think he doesn't fit my mold of philosophy. I still think his system is way more articulated that any religion. And I don't know enough of postmodern philosophy, but if they're anything like the historians, they're probably not philosophers.
I know a bit about philosophy, but I'll be honest here: I'm not a scholar, not even a student. But it was kinda fun too read all kinds of stuff until late 19th century.
>>83644241
National economic policy shouldn't be based on fucking philosophy. It should be based on economics. This is why Randroids have ruined the right in America. Back in the day, Dems would be the idealists. They took their philosophy and governed with it. Republicans were pragmatists. After a Democrat, the Republicans would tone down what hte Democrat had done too much of while keeping what worked. It was an ebb and flow that worked. Fast forward to a 90s world where Ancaps and Randroids run the GOP and you have two parties based completely on ideology and not pragmatism playing tug of war over the nation.
So I hope Rand is proud.
>>83644679
>Yes?
Congratulations. You've used rational self-interest.
>What part of my answer implies I don't?
The part where you're triggered by "rational self-interest" like expecting something in return is automatically a bad thing. Funny how people like to say that and yet don't apply to themselves when it comes to work.
>>83644732
>Rand literally believed helping anyone without gaining something was the most evil thing in the world.
And you're leaving of WHY which is dishonest and just trying to make her look bad because that's the typical response you'll get from people. She said that or thought that to prevent someone from being used or taken advantage of. It's the evil fuck who tells you to do things for them, out of kindness and then turns around and doesn't help you out or offer anything in return. You offer something in return to show appreciation, like you ask for something to be shown you are appreciated.
It's a two way street, you do realize this right? I don't expect anyone to do thing for me unless I have something to offer them in return as well. That "something" can be anything you want. If you just like helping people, that's a value to you, then you got "something in return" for it.
You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors helping people who hurt or harm you, when you don't want too. That's not noble or just, that's enabling the ignoble and unjust.
>>83644770
If *I* believed that, then why did I put that in quotation marks exactly? Did you read the whole post? That's what how I think everyone else sees it. The idea of being a good person for your own sake is very foreign to them.
>>83645257
>blaming rand for americans being retards
>>83644933
Philosophy is a logical approach to understanding questions of morality, justice, etc. It's certainly not how we understand the world.
>>83645367
I don't *blame* her, but her beliefs have lived on and somehow turned into economic policies, so she's the source at least.
>>83645257
>There is some sort of connection between the Republicans and Rand because they cherry pick Rand like they cherry pick the Bible.
Not even going to take that one seriously. Objectivism isn't a republican or democract thing, despite what people make it out to be.
>>83644395
So much edge, so little time.
>>83645464
The belief that the government has an intrinsically adversarial and destructive role in the economy is absolutely Randian and those beliefs are prominent in many influential GOP leaders. Just because you've chosen to make the GOP monolothic doesn't mean the reality is that people like Paul Ryan keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged on his desk.
>>83645455
No they haven't. The Republicans cherry picked the shit out of her words if anything. They liked the capitalism part but they didn't like the rational atheist part that LEAD to the capitalism part so they pulled the same shit they always pull when they talk a capitalist game but played like socialists and created corporate welfare for their donors.
Rand hated the Republicans.
>>83645530
>The belief that the government has an intrinsically adversarial and destructive role in the economy is absolutely Randian and those beliefs are prominent in many influential GOP leaders.
Rand's not the only person where this idea came from. She was borrowing heavily from Smith and classical economists. Lazzie-faire was never her original idea and she said as much.
>Just because you've chosen to make the GOP monolothic doesn't mean the reality is that people like Paul Ryan keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged on his desk.
And he still plays "MUH JESUS" bullshit politics? Then that copy means nothing more than any other book politicians don't read but love to quote from if it makes them look better.
>>83645628
>She was borrowing heavily from Smith and classical economists.
Except her "borrowing" involved taking what Smith said and taking it to an extreme and dangerous level. Smith believed the government had a role, and if you'd actually read Wealth of Nations you'd know that. Hayek, who I'm sure you'd quote next, fucking believed in a basic income.
Believing in government capture is one thing. It's undoubtedly true. The vast majority of regulation exists so that companies can be more monopolistic. The problem is that the dogma of Objectivism requires you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It undervalues the importance of government's role in the economy, and then goes on to blame ALL monopolies on the government.
>>83645318
>If *I* believed that, then why did I put that in quotation marks exactly? Did you read the whole post? That's what how I think everyone else sees it. The idea of being a good person for your own sake is very foreign to them.
That was my question. Do you really think that's how everyone else views being good? Because that's how I know you're a bad person.
>>83645410
Are you not aware that morality and justice are both immoral and unjust? They're all nothing but techniques used by the powerless to collectivize their energies to chain the powerful few, and to use the efforts of the productive minority of our society to fulfill their own sick hedonistic desires. The masses are ingrates, a race of born parasites who steal from the virtuous few who have made this miserable shit ball of a planet worth living on. They constructed inefficient socialist systems of oppression to further enslave the powerful, and further steal from their superior strengths of innovation and creativity. And now what do we see? The eventual collapse of these socialist pyramid schemes seem to soon be upon us, and governments across the west are importing unintelligent savages to continue this dysgenic process that has led our species spiraling towards oblivion. Why should the masses be allowed any sort of power over the state when those dishonorable rats will always do nothing but use the power of the state to extort wealth from the noble few? No, I say it is the masses who should rightfully be oppressed, and it is the powerful minority who should be uplifted, as they are the only ones who drive the progression of the human animal. Any dissenter can enjoy getting killed, while the rest of us can enjoy having yet more worthlessness being cleansed from our collective genepool. We should rid ourselves of this mind decease called Democracy, and strive towards are Fascistic line of governmental thought. Force. That is what we need to create a world of worthiness. Ruthless and unfeeling force.
>>83646050
tl;dr
>>83644641
This.
>>83646050
wow stop posting
>>83645318
>The part where you're triggered by "rational self-interest" like expecting something in return is automatically a bad thing.
Except I never said that?
>>83641811
>>83645769
>Smith believed the government had a role, and if you'd actually read Wealth of Nations you'd know that.
Rand believed taking it to the same level Smith did.
>>83645318
>. It's the evil fuck who tells you to do things for them, out of kindness and then turns around and doesn't help you out or offer anything in return.
So you're saying that Ayn Rand's entire fucking philosophy is based off of one possible way to solve the free rider problem? Did she know that's not the only moral hazard out there?
>>83644641
The people who act like those two bullet points are also the same people who "grow out of it" and then tell other people that's what it's about.
Because, gasp, SUPRISE! Shock! Awe! The philosophy isn't about "being an asshole" at all and people got the wrong idea. So they end up leaving Objectivism anyway when they find that's not what it is about.
>>83646432
So she believed in a publicly funded education system?
>>83642577
no.
>>83646568
>The philosophy isn't about "being an asshole" at all
>>83643891
Basically. Selfishness and callousness are somehow the only moral way to live.
I'm atheist and cynical as they come and I think be a fucking asshole all you want just don't act like a pretentious moralfag about it.
I'm also a Libertarian but most Objectivists as opposed to Libertarians are 11 year old retarded trust fund babies in my experience.
Also Jesus Ayn was one ugly bitch.
>>83642365
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/
>>83646432
Their opinions of human nature were very different. Smith didn't simply believe everyone was selfish. He found people to be sympathetic and respectful. That's the largest misconception about him.
>>83646802
>Jesus Ayn was one ugly bitch
She was Jewish.
>>83642586
Paul Pope literally did a Batman comic in which they save von Mises' writings from Nazi Berlin
https://mises.org/library/holy-praxeology-batman
>>83646609
I hope not. As someone who went through a publicly funded school, I'm convinced the only people who support such institutions are genuinely cruel and malicious.
>>83644732
One gigantic fucking problem here is the assumption that humans are largely rational when an absolute mountain of empirical objective scientific evidence collected over the last century supports the hypothesis that people are not rational. Because brains weren't designed and the evolutionary process that led to them is extremely messy and flawed, leading to everything from optical illusions to confirmation bias.
From an objective, scientific standpoint, Rand is simply wrong.
This is the problem with basing all of your belief in your personal feelings and not on empirical evidence, as Rand did.
>>83646952
As a society, we really need to get over the whole "Nazis were bad guys" meme.
>>83647150
But Rand did base her beliefs on empirical evidence, she was a fucking objectivist for God's sake.
>>83647263
Her entire system is literally "if Marx said X, I'll say Y"
>>83646227
>>83646278
No refutation, as expected of lesser beings.
I wish sometimes that Nietzsche wasn't compared to Rand because honestly he was fsr more nuanced. That said, I look somewhat askance at philosophy, at least taken without question these days, because it is usually one person's personal internal logic that is not subject to repeated data gathering and testing. This has led to many so-called "self evident truths" that are patently incorrect.
>>83647303
Who?
>>83647263
Please, pleasr show me the repeated experiments and meta studies proving her assertions that she conducted before positing them re-tested by unbiased peers as we would expect for any scientific theory, then.
>>83647464
No. I don't have to. You have to prove me wrong first.
>>83647500
Not that guy but why would he need to prove you wrong if you haven't proven yourself right. You need some evidence for your own assertion first fampai.
Literally anything by Jay Naylor.
Fucker doesn't shut the hell up about Rand.
>>83647500
I assume you are trolling since the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion.
So instead I'll just observe that I feel public policy should be based on what has been demonstrated to practically work as opposed to the unfounded emotion-drive personal beliefs of an individual.
>>83643821
Objectivism is the idea of a completely objective universe (i.e. it can't exist unless it can be seen, touched, heard, felt, or tasted) created by Ayn Rand. It emphasizes the individual as opposed to the group (a direct antithesis to Rand's communist upbringing). However, the part of it that people tend to focus on the most is the idea of rational self interest which is essentially the opposite of altruism.
Imagine you're a caveman. You have fur and meat because you know how to hunt and are very successful at it. One day, you come upon a caveman who wants you meat and fur. He can't hunt for himself, but he figured out how to make his own shelter and how to grow vegetables, so you agree to give him meat and fur in exchange for a place to stay and fresh veggies. This is an ideal relationship according to rational self interest. If another caveman came along wanting meat, fur, vegetables, and shelter but had nothing to offer, you'd kick his ass to the caveman curb. People don't deserve something for nothing. To offer the means by which you sustain yourself to another for nothing in return is immoral because it's denies the self who is most important above all.
I could go on an on, but pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and you'll get the picture (just be aware that it's basically the objectivist bible, so it WILL get preachy).
>>83647628
>the self is most important above all
Why?
>>83647628
What about your cavekids, who have no means to hunt or gather for themselves or find their own shelter and rely on you to provide for them until they are old enough to do so themselves?
>>83647628
We all get that feeding moochers is bad. Nobody likes doing that. The problem is, Rand doesn't think you should help anyone for any reason unless it directly benefits you.
>>83647394
Mind explaining the differences?
Honest question.
>>83647628
everybody agrees that helping freeloaders is bad. That doesn't mean that being altruistic and trying to make the world better for others is "evil".
The part you missed on your little parable is that the caveman that has fur and meat got the means to take everything for himself through deception, lies and fraud.
The part where the one that gets the fur and meat makes non-equivalent exchanges, like giving 1 kg of meat for 30 kg of vegetables. Or the part where he uses his own resources to force the one with the fur and vegetables to give him everything for almost free
>>83644589
You phrase your question as if it is binary. It isn't.
I've done some work that I've fully expected to be paid. But I've also done work for free.
Shall I expect payment for cleaning up my own house and doing my own dishes?
>>83642382
Dunno if that's true, but 4chan could use some more of whatever that's called. People use it in lieu of google. It's disgusting.
>>83647628
let's not forget the coalitions between some of the meat and shelter cavemans, where they agree to support one of them for leadership and then confine the means for people to start their own meat and shelter companies by extortion and shitty taxes.
You make it sound as these "caveman" are human beings when they're actually corporations, both political and non-political.
>>83647674
Because Rand hated the idea of living for the group (see. Anthem)
>>83647728
You would instill in them your values and in turn they help you as you do them once they are capable.
>>83647856
Exactly.
>>83647959
I'm not here to defend objectivism, just explain it. I didn't account for those factors because I just wanted to explain the basic premise of objectivism in simple, concise way. Obviously objectivism - like any ideology - is by no means perfect, especially in the real world.
oh yeah, let's also not forget that Ayn Rand never criticized the use of underhanded tactics in order to help the individual.
You objectivists try to make your shitty philosophy as it was actually good when it isn't. You can justify anything with that shitty "rational self-interest" bullshit.
I guess that since it's for my happiness and self-interest, I can start to rape, kill and steal.
The worst part is that this last sentence isn't even a goddamn joke, that's how objectivists see the world. Like a playground where right makes might.
>>83647628
Most evidence indicates early hominids shared everything they gathered equally and did not possess petsonal property.
For nomadic band socities this manner of cooperation was the best and only successful survival strategy and analysis of fossils indicates egalitarianism and hominids caring for members who wetr disabled and could not care for themselves, including those born deformed, as early as H. Eretus 1 Million years ago.
That strategy you described based on current evidence was not an evolutionary success in the environment you described and if it did dissapeared.
Now with the very tecent emergence of tribal societies after bamd societies something like comes into play, albeit at the same time warfare appears in the archaeological record indicating that coercion through violence began to serve as a successful strategy along with enslavement of others, etc.
>>83648176
might makes right*
>>83646568
Almost no one really practices a philosophy. Especially people who profess to. They're basically useless.
>>83648160
>You would instill in them your values
How do I benefit from that?
>they help you as you do them once they are capable.
So I can take a rest and let them do the hunting for me? How often do children actually do that, assuming I'm still of sound enough age and health that I'm capable of hunting but am choosing not to in order to let my children hunt for me?
Furthermore, what incentive do they have to continue hunting for me? What do they gain from it?
>>83647728
I've read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and while I liked both (the former more so), she only writes about kids in one instance that I can remember. Of note, is that none of her protagonists or even antagonists have children.
>>83648160
>Because Rand hated the idea of living for the group
But why though. For a philosophy supposedly based in rationality there must be some attempt at "objective" reasoning that puts the self ahead of everything
>>83648206
Sorry for the typos but having studied this subject in graduate school I become frustrated when assertions are made based on suppositions and parables rather than examination of the evidence. My apologizes.
>>83648160
I like how the question "why is the self the most important thing above all else" is answered with "because Rand said so."
>>83648176
>I guess that since it's for my happiness and self-interest, I can start to rape, kill and steal.
Rand advocated for police and order. People are needed to enforce morals and such. What you're describing is closer to anarchy which is the furthest extreme in libertarianism which was based off of objectivism, but cherry picked, which is why Rand hated it. That's not to say that objectivism still doesn't have it's problems (for example, in an objectivist society, monopolies would be a-okay) but it's not COMPLETELY shit.
>>83648334
Yeah, she advocated for police and order because otherwise her entire philosophy falls. Unfortunately her philosophy doesn't admonish criminals picking up weaker targets and being careful enough to not get discovered.
Since the criminal was successful enough on picking up a weaker target and play by the rules of society at least apparently, he has the right to make as he/she wants with his/her victim.
>>83647595
I agree with you 100%, but the problem lies in that empirical research in economics almost always relies on econometric regressions which are subject to extreme biases. One of my professors was essentially a hard-science economist and he was unwilling to say anything about how any governmental policy should be because literally no issue has been "concluded" to be scientifically good or bad.
So basically, you can't practically govern without basing your economic policy on what sounds right because the body of literature is almost never in agreement.
>>83648271
You ultimately have to look out for yourself, but you still need other people to help you. You have meat and fur, but no shelter. However, you shouldn't get that shelter for nothing, nor should someone get your meat for nothing. I think "the self is important above all" is a bad way to phrase it. A better way to describe it would be "altruism sucks ass".
and just to make it more clear that I'm just trying to EXPLAIN objectivism and not ADVOCATE it, here's a fun fact: Ayn Rand spent the last few years of her life living off of public assistance, so she basically died a hypocrite.
>>83648334
The issue is coercion. From a market perspective, slavery can be a very successful system. Monopolies and corporations can be as coercive as "the State" in practice, as we see via warlords in the parts of the world where the State has fallen apart. One issue is in reality humans are irrational and very often do things that are very bad for themselves, never mind others. This is why both anarchy AND communism have aways failef to create functional societies on anything but the smallest scale. Idealogies frequently do not function in the real world, as you implied.
>>83642532
That's just Martha Washington goes to war specifically, Give me Liberty is quite blatantly left-wing, even if it pokes fun at its own excesses.
Goes to War, by the way, though obviously based around Atlas Shrugged's plot structure, has very little to do with the political content of the book itself, especially since the world Martha occupied is very different from the one in Atlas Shrugged, as a lefty myself, it really just demonstrated to me what a crying shame it is for American culture that the only normally permissible narrative about a strike that actually results in a better world is about one perpetrated by the rich.
This, alongside the modern American definition of "libertarian," is part of a larger historical trend of the right pilfering from the left to sustain itself, even stuff as simple as fascists using red and black because they were Anarcho-Syndicalist colors up 'til that point.
>>83648402
Who said anything about economics?
>>83648334
There's a lot of "no true Scotsman" stuff at work in this thread about Rand. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT very different from objectivism. The Koch brothers, for instance, largely identify with both.
The conclusion would simply be that the police could be a private service that people paid for.
>>83646050
You're just rationalizing the status quo. You could come up with a much less wordy way to say working to change your world isn't worth your effort.
>>83648507
>Monopolies and corporations can be as coercive as "the State" in practice
Randroids are convinced the only reason any monopoly ever exists is because of the state. I've literally had one of them tell me natural monopolies are a lie.
>>83648531
What field of study do you intend to base your economic policy on other than economics, anon?
>>83648402
I would say currently some blend of capitalism and socialism is the only model we've gotten to work, which doesn't mean it's the only possibility but simply that it at least has evidence of a track record. I also think far more research should be done than is.
>>83648494
No, altruism is a successful evolutionary strategy that has existed for millions of years, which is why it exists and psychopaths are the minority, and also why the vast bulk of psychopaths in real life are deeply dysfunctional. Even among animals like chimpanzees who murdet and eat each other, altruism is extremely common and no large brained animals or social animals we are currently aware of completely lack it.
>>83648565
Let me put it like this: objectivism is great on paper, but then again, so is communism and getting your dick sucked for 24 hours straight.
>>83648293
>I like how the question "why is the self the most important thing above all else" is answered with "because Rand said so."
I don't think that's true. I'm not expert on the subject, but I'd imagine the answer is 'because it's the only real way to happiness'. Denying your own self-interests for the sake of a group is to deny yourself being a person.
If I could boil down her entire philosophy into a simple premise as I understand it, it would be this: True altruism doesn't exist. If you help people, it is because YOU want to do so, because YOU like how it makes YOU feel. By doing so, YOU are actually being _selfish_. Helping people because it is what OTHERS want or expect of you actually makes you _selfless_ in a literal sense, as in having no self.
>>83648254
Sauce?
>>83645455
You're a *faggot*.
>>83648655
>some blend of capitalism and socialism is the only model we've gotten to work
Policy isn't holistic like that. What you said is essentially a given, and governments have known that for a century. It's been the last century figuring out the specifics.
> I also think far more research should be done than is.
Sure, but again, that's a pretty blank statement. Fact is that there's no shortage of research on contentious issues like, say, minimum wage increases, and if you pick which ones you agree with, you can suddenly have a great idea of its impacts. Unfortunately, the body of evidence is completely inconclusive as a whole and for every study that says increases in minimum wage are overall good for the economy, there's another that says they're bad. And this is the same for every major economic issue. Throwing more money at universities to research won't change that. It'll just make the body of conflicting data larger. There's a systemic issue in economics that needs to be addressed before you can even start to make decisions based on real, reducible evidence.
>>83648842
>You can't blame Marx for Marxism! All he did was formulate and publish the ideas!
>>83648750
This valuing of personal happiness is in and of itself just as baseless and subjective a valuation as the happiness and well-being of those around you.
>>83646919
So was Jesus.
>>83648885
What's funny is in some ways I don't blame either Marx or Rand for subsequent fuckups but rather people who put their personal musings (which ate fine on their face) into practice like...well, like fools.
>>83648954
>Jesus wouldn't care which god you worship!
>Literally said nobody can get to heaven except through Him
Sure, Jesus wasn't nearly as conservative as modern American Evangelicals pretend, but he wasn't half as Liberal as millennials think. He was a radical for his society. not a radical for ours.
>>83649008
I've admittedly not read Rand so I can't say, but I have read the Communist Manifesto, and it's legitimately retarded. All Marx ever did was try to break capitalism down in Das Kapital, and he has some decent critiques of capitalism at that time, but he provided ZERO explanations for why communism would work, and was basically like "just trust me guys. it will work", so I don't know how anyone can misconstrue that with their own "personal musings".
If anything, later communists actually turned Marx's bullshit ideas into something legitimate.
>>83641661
The Unfunnies.
>>83647959
>everybody agrees that helping freeloaders is bad.
I see people handing out sauce all the time. Makes me sick.
>>83648279
You put in a lot of effort to spend the rest of your life disgusted with most of your fellow man. Hope you make good money from it.
>>83648596
>What field of study do you intend to base your economic policy on other than economics
Voodoo.
>>83649076
Yeah yeah. Everyone gets their own personal Jesus.
>>83648930
In the Randian-context, people who only take from others ("second-handers") are just as selfless and miserable as those who give with no regard for their own selfish desires. Eventually, the parasites become dependent on the providers/creators to survive. If the providers, who actually posses personal happiness, were to disappear then humanity itself, having come to be comprised mostly of second-handers who lack not only happiness but any sense of self, would follow suit. So then, is the survival of the human species a subjective matter?
>>83649891
Obligatory post reminding you that Rand died taking public handouts
She was also a jew.
>>83643977
>sane discussion
>on an insane philosophy
lol
>>83643946
The creator of the movie is literally an objectivist. He did the same shit in Tomorrowland.
>>83649434
Reagan pls
>>83649960
>Rand died taking public handouts
Flawed argument. She made use of public healthcare because her taxes paid for it.
>She was also a jew.
N-no comment.
>>83649891
That's a lot of baseless assertions with absolutely zero evidence to supprt them. The problem with philosophy. You'd need to demonstrate that would happen. Usually when say a CEO dissapears countless other are willing and able to immediately take their place instead and in a capitalist society many of the wealthiest are not innovators themselves but know how to profits from the innovations of others or the often destructive impulses and addictions of the masses. But really that assertion as any of yours and Rand's demands actual empirical evidence.
As for the survival of the human species likely made possible by altruism, well, the current human driven extinction event seems to indicate this single species is damaging to countless others, so yes, thinking it should stick around is a subjective value judgment especially considering the death and suffering of other sentient life it causes.
>>83650193
She also encouraged friends who had paid no taxes to move to America to take advantage of the system. And screwing over hardworking taxpayers was consistent with her idealization of self serving, well, selfishness.
>>83644317
I don't always expect payment for my work
>>83649960
>She was also a jew.
How is this relevant? Why did you feel the need to point this out?
>>83645257
Ideally, philosophy is absolutely pragmatic
>>83650328
>race literally raised with an imperative towards greed
>not relevant regarding a "philosophy" defending greed and selfishness
keep drinking that kool-aid
>>83650406
Every philosophy makes someone money, so that ideal is useless. It's like saying ideally, water is wet.
>>83646050
Why?
>>83650019
I'm going to admit the sheer number of liberal arts majors who support Objectivism when their tripe becomes popular is enough to make me question it alone because I don't feel many of them have job skills, ideas, or talent and I would take these ideas much more seriously coming from doctors, scientists, and inventors of momentous accomplishment. Bird is somewhat of an exception in that he does have talent, but he is still eminently replacable and expendable, luck and personal connections and talent working underneath you that you didn't even hire means the most in these "fields" by far.
>>83650289
>She also encouraged friends who had paid no taxes to move to America to take advantage of the system
[citation needed]
>The problem with philosophy
>empirical evidence
You said it, pal.
>>83650445
>greed is racial
Go to bed, Adolf.
You guys asked for it
STORY TIME
What makes a Hero?
Skipped Numbers are Ad pages
>>83650551
In the Jews case it is. Jews are a weird race, in that Jews are also a really insular culture. So yeah, jews are raised from a young age to celebrate greed.
>>83641661
Are you going to OCON, anon?I'll see you there if so.
>>83650562
No Logicomix?
>>83650618
How many Objectivists are there on 4chan? Are you the same guys on reddit?
t. Objectivist
>>83648271
Because she grew up in a communist country and disliked communism
The best Question is actually in the last pages of DKSA who goes "She didn't take it far enough"
>>83650606
You don't have a single shred of evidence in support of this claim. Did you read some 19th century racialist propaganda recently? What convinced you to spout such nonsensical antisemitic babblings?
>Objectivist comics
>nobody knows who bosch fawstin is even thouh his comic was nominated for the eisner
>even though he almost got killed defending his work
>nobody knows about the thousands of Anthem comics because the book went public
retards.
>>83650649
And her works are entirely baseless and the fact that she was born in communism just invalidates everything. Am i right, guise?
What you're imolying is that you're touched by your experiences wiout your own consent, which means you're assuming that people can't think or deal with things.
>>83648750
This I understand.
But I think there is a difference between saying that true altruism is impossible and saying that working for the group is wrong
>>83650758
True altruism is impossible because, guess what, the greatest act of sacrifice is suicide for someone you don't know.
She didn't demean groups, she demeaned groups that were baseless. "Society" is not a collective somehting, it's just many individuals. If you're forming a group, you need to know who the individuals are and act accordingly.
>>83650613
>libertard gets buttmad and throws a tantrum because everyone is calling him a faggot
If you think you're too smart for /co/ then why are you here?
>>83650828
If she rejects category theory, how does she resolve Russel's paradox?
>>83650692
So you don't know anything about Jews or jewish culture? Okay.
>>83650455
Water IS wet
I mean that if a philosophy isn't practical then it's literally useless.
Good philosophy can be applied to noticeable results.
That's why the only philosophies that are really worth anything are the ones that center around personal action rather than the fucking economy.
Today this mostly comes in the form of self-help books, which are scams, but not all philosophies were developed for a profit
So what is the difference between Rand's philosophy and Nietzsche's philosophy?
>>83650930
One was inspired by PMS, the other hard drugs.
Are you a Hero?
>>83650828
Firefighters kill themselves for people they don't know
>>83650913
>Ayn Rand was jewish
when will this meme end? Her parents were not very religious and she became an atheist at a very young age. She never used or quoted any of the Jewish books because they have a mystic base. She was against judaism, not for it. She was an atheist
>inb4 lol many jews are atheists
and yet, she never was friends with someone just because he was a jew. Also, you can't be a jew and be an objectivist at the same time.
>inb4 lol both are capitalism
>lol both use shekels
strawman.
>>83650750
People can't have original thoughts, that's correct.
Objectivism is just a reaction to failed communism
>>83650995
>Judaism is just a religion
oy
vey
>>83650930
Neitzche was collectivist and didnot accept pogic and reason as methods to identify the world. He also was a little kantian.
>>83650958
kys
>>83650990
And they also sign a contract. They don't have to kill themselves, and I don't think they should. Just because some do doesn't mean it's correct. You can put out fires and save lives without putting yourself in danger.
>>83651021
>people can't have original thoughts
bet you also think free will is a meme
>>83651023
>this bs response
can you disprove what I wrote? If not, then don't post, faggot.
>>83651046
Your thread is off-topic, and you use modern /b/ slang. An hero, tripfag.
I guess this would have been a more appropriate comics selection
Lets get some knowledge.
>>83650995
She was avid sucker of the teats of social welfare and handouts.What a welfare queen, why didn't she get a job instead of fucking around in New York and cheating on his husband?
>muh bioshock btfo objectivists!!!!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/18162w/bioshock_an_overly_detailed_objectivist_criticism/
>muh Ayn Rand collected social security!
She paid into the system.
>>83651121
>kys is not modern /b/ slang
this is an old-ass meme, more than a decade old.
>muh "this guy is a tripfag lol ban him"
kys
>>83651046
Nigga, not always.
Sometimes there is something more important than your personal benefit.
Sometimes there is no way to guarantee the safety of that thing than through some form of self-sacrifice which does not come around to your own personal benefit.
For instance, something as small as not littering. It may require some effort and probably won't improve your life. But you do it because you know it will benefit (in a small way) future generations and the world at large.
>>83651073
Free will is an illusion
There are pretty few philosophers who even disagree fully with that
>>83651160
She was forced to pay millions of dollars as taxes. She just took them back, retard.
>muh cheating
She never slept around, and the one time she was having an "affair" she had already decided to get a divorce and told her husband about it.
>>83651183
>muh littering
shit example
>>83651180
It is not.
>>83651217
>muh statement
yes, go on...
Also, invalidate what Rand said on free will and also prove that humans can't have original thoughts, including you.
Oh wait, that last part is correct.
>>83651237
>abbreviation of "kill yourself" is new
>>83651183
And you're implying that because there is no short term benifit (iyo) objectivists won't see it as good. False. Not littering roads and your house is good becasue guess what? Roads and your house stay clean and free from germs. Also, a road is not a place to throw your garbage. Is doesn't mean you are being un-selfish. You're still being selfish.
>>83651046
>You can put out fires and save lives without putting yourself in danger.
You actually can't. That's what makes that job inherently dangerous.
>>83651218
This comic was pretty good, I should re-read it.
>>83650618
I'm a full fledged Objectivist but I don't go to reddit.
>>83651305
>>83651348
Because you are the reddit
>>83651309
Even then, how is it an argument?
>>83641661
meg mog and owl. also, what does objectivist mean?
>>83651375
>what does objectivist mean?
it means stupid
>>83651348
r/trueobjectivism
>missing out on so much discussion
Also, galtsgulchonline is a good forum but it's full of old people and christian objectivists(lol)
